People to watch who may shift the US 2016 campaign

[bendejo]

Clinton cleaned up that mess and left a huge budget surplus to George Junior that he immediately squandered, then ran up the deficit while running down the Country.

Remember when that happened? Nearly every taxpayer got a $300 check in the mail summer of 2001, it was as if they couldn't get it out of there fast enough. Usually when they do something like that it is part of the tax return filing. And this was before 9/11 and the wars.

[Publicus]

Also 9/11 was Clinton's fault. If that doesn't make sense, have Sean Hannity explain it to you.

After that, read what Richard Clark has to say on it. I'm sure Condee Rice will have 'no comment.'

Speaking of influential people in the 2016 campaign to elect the new prez, Condoleezza Rice and the Republican party know the best thing she can do is to remain publicly silent.

Condee "Mushroom Cloud" Rice is another kiss of death to the R party in this election and in any election going forward. "Condi" gave G.W. all the bogus support Bush needed to go into Iraq and to do everything else that made G.W.Bush the worst foreign policy president ever.

Colin Powell as secretary of state and Condoleezza Rice as Bush's other secretary of state have made the Republican party think twice, and now R's are anxious to keep each one quiet presently and going forward. Powell was a political general, who never had a major command and Rice is a political hack academic.

[BoneRanger]

Also 9/11 was Clinton's fault. If that doesn't make sense, have Sean Hannity explain it to you.

After that, read what Richard Clark has to say on it. I'm sure Condee Rice will have 'no comment.'

Speaking of influential people in the 2016 campaign to elect the new prez, Condoleezza Rice and the Republican party know the best thing she can do is to remain publicly silent.

Condee "Mushroom Cloud" Rice is another kiss of death to the R party in this election and in any election going forward. "Condi" gave G.W. all the bogus support Bush needed to go into Iraq and to do everything else that made G.W.Bush the worst foreign policy president ever.

Colin Powell as secretary of state and Condoleezza Rice as Bush's other secretary of state have made the Republican party think twice, and now R's are anxious to keep each one quiet presently and going forward. Powell was a political general, who never had a major command and Rice is a political hack academic.

Upon leaving office the final poll recorded Bush's approval rating as 19%, a record low for any U.S. President. Just about everybody that was attached to GW Bush has been ruined. Rice, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft.

And his dad made some real mistakes too. Remember Dan Quayle? Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin. Now that would be a fun ticket to watch. Dumb and Dumber Go To Washington. At least the late night comedy shows would be funny.

[Publicus]

John Podesta mentioned in the OP will be critical to who wins.

Hillary is about to make him chairman of her campaign organization and operation because she knows Podesta, who is formerly Bill's best and most effective White House chief of staff, will correct the flaws of her unsuccessful 2008 campaign for the nomination.

A major reason Hillary did not get the few more delegates she needed to surpass Obama for the 2008 nomination was the distractions among her key staff due to their jockeying for power, their personal infighting, which is common and the rule in Washington offices, and the turnover of major Washington figures in major campaign positions including those at the top.

Podesta will bring the needed discipline to Hillary's campaign organization and its operations that he brought to the White House staff and throughout the Bill Clinton administration.

Just about everyone knows that if Hillary has a smooth and consistent campaign, she will win no matter who the R party puts up against her. She can win without Podesta, but Podesta has demonstrated he gets people focused on the objective as being in their own personal interest and investment.

[Loptr]

Meh, at this point, who cares... The 2016 elections are setting up to be another set of dynastic candidates that will do nothing for the average American and everything for the elites and banksters...

Clinton vs Bush... It's enough to make one want to puke...

All part of the reason I left the USSA as the political system is a joke...

[lovetotravel]

Meh, at this point, who cares... The 2016 elections are setting up to be another set of dynastic candidates that will do nothing for the average American and everything for the elites and banksters...

Clinton vs Bush... It's enough to make one want to puke...

All part of the reason I left the USSA as the political system is a joke...

And yet you live here? A bit hypocritical, yes???

Name one country that doesn't have a political system that's a joke. Seriously.

[bendejo]

Remember Dan Quayle?

I consider Quayle to be W's warm-up act.

Imaginary dialog at the 1988 GOP convention, with Quayle being suggested to Bush as VP.

"Yeah ok, I can handle him, got one just like him at home."

[chuckd]

According to Mike's Blog, bet on the Democrats when it comes to the economy.

A HISTORY OF RECESSION IN THE UNITED STATES 1950 TO 2008

http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html

As far as people to watch in the 2016 campaign. Go for the Democrat.

Investors can easily benefit if the Republicans get back into office by 'shorting' the US stock market.

Statistics prove, nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under the direction of Republican economic policy.

Reagan was an economic disaster. Reagan’s tight fiscal policy and massive deficit spending contracted the economy again in late 1981, producing unemployment of 10.8% and prime interest rates that hovered between 15% and 21.5%

Bill Clinton’s economic stimulus plan of 1993 produced the greatest wealth and job creation in all of recorded human history.

Clinton’s economic plan reduced the National Debt by $587 billion, and balanced 5 budgets.

NOTE: Not a single Republican House member voted for it and none of the last 5 Republican presidents had a balance budget.

Just a brief note since I have already wasted more time on Democratic party propaganda than I want to, let me point out that Bill Clinton's Economic Stimulus Plan of 1993 was defeated by the Senate and never became law.

The reason Clinton turned out to be an economic genius is because he followed Newt Gingrich's lead and signed balanced budgets.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 had a lot to do with the sub-prime mortgage failure of 2007. That bill was signed into law by Jimmy Carter (D-GA).

Now, back to Alabama-Ohio State for me.

Yes and by the time Clinton's (D) second term was ending the country was entering a recession which GW Bush inherited.

Ohio State beat #1 ranked Alabama and will play MY MIGHTY OREGON for the national championship 555.

So GW Bush oversaw 2 recessions but they were Clinton & Carters fault? U Huh...

And Clintons success was due to Newt Gingrich.

Now we have a president that cleaned up GW Bush's gigantic mess, the country is booming economically... and somehow he's the incompetent?

Sorry for the delay but I see you have been busy on your inaugural day without my presence.

You seem to be very careful with your wording on this last post. You claim Bush "oversaw" 2 recessions, but not that the policies of the Bush administration "caused" the recessions.

Which do you believe?

I will admit there were two recessions that were declared during the Bush administration, The first one was declared in March 2001.

Since the description of a recession is normally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters, I fail to understand how the Bush administration could be faulted for the previous two quarters of falling GDP in 2000.

He did not take office until January 20,2001 so he was not in the Oval Office during the period that caused the recession but was in office when the recession was officially declared after two months of his term in office.

Bill Clinton was the sitting President during that period of time. Hence, Bush really did inherit a recession from the previous Clinton administration.

The second recession in 2008 was caused by the sub-prime mortgage lending crisis which affected the world wide banking system. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 had a huge impact on lending practices beginning, in earnest, during the Clinton administration and carrying over into the Bush administration. Government regulators have a way of influencing events by using regulatory actions.

The failures of the Bush administration were in not stopping those lending initiatives that were leading to the bank failures. Even though Bush called for restraint by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, his calls for restraint were shouted down by Democratic party leadership in both the House and Senate.

There is a rather detailed article from Business Insider you and your various supporters might want to become familiar with. You might even learn something.

The link is: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

As much as I hate to do it, here is a link to a Fox News report posted by a Canadian source that details some of the actions taken by the Bush administration and Congress. Fox is the only network that would report on something that might be detrimental to the Democratic party agenda.

I ask again, how was the Bush administration complicit in the 2001 recession?

IMHO the recession in 2008 was more an act of omission rather than an act of commission on the part of the Bush administration. Perhaps he could have and should have taken firmer action early on in his presidency rather than merely pointing to the upcoming problem beginning in 2001.

[Ulysses G.]

Remember Dan Quayle?

Yep. The liberal press crucified him when he corrected a student's spelling, based on an inaccurate flash card prepared by the teacher of the class.

Imagine what they would have done to him if he had claimed that he had visited "57 states," like Barack Obama did. For some strange reason, they never gave Obama's goof a lot of attention.

[Publicus]

Remember Dan Quayle?

Yep. The liberal press crucified him when he corrected a student's spelling, based on an inaccurate flash card prepared by the teacher of the class.

Imagine what they would have done to him if he had claimed that he had visited "57 states," like Barack Obama did. For some strange reason, they never gave Obama's goof a lot of attention.

You wanna do George Bush goofs....

....the thread would jump ahead by 8 pages in one post.....

[chuckd]

Remember Dan Quayle?

Yep. The liberal press crucified him when he corrected a student's spelling, based on an inaccurate flash card prepared by the teacher of the class.

Imagine what they would have done to him if he had claimed that he had visited "57 states," like Barack Obama did. For some strange reason, they never gave Obama's goof a lot of attention.

You wanna do George Bush goofs....

....the thread would jump ahead by 8 pages in one post.....

Permit me to add another one of Obama's goofs..."If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

Every politician has verbal gaffes. Some are unintentional, some not so much.

[Ulysses G.]

You wanna do George Bush goofs....

ALL of them have multiple goofs. It is unavoidable when someone does a lot of public speaking. However, the press is a lot more obsessive about reporting some people's goofs over others.

[Publicus]

Mission Accomplished

!!!!!!!!!

[Ulysses G.]

"John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith"

[Traveler19491]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The US campaign for prez is excessive when compared and contrasted to other democracies but there isn't any other way to do it in the United States.

The regular-term election cycle proscribed in the constitution precludes the snap election common to the parliamentary system. Nor is the US a constitutional monarchy, meaning voters elect the civilian who is to become head of state (the prez).

No one is quite prepared much less imminently qualified to be the president. While the US has the Ivy League assortment of prestigious universities, there is no one or two schools of public administration or of governance such as in the Old World from Europe to China, from Eton to Peking University. Hence the US has the lengthy and grueling process of campaigning for the party's prize, which is its coveted nomination at its quadrennial national convention in the summer before the election. Even Hillary and Jeb have to be ground through the process like sausages.

The predicate of it all is that the grotesque process ensures that the person who emerges from it will not crack up in the White House given the highly partisan and no holds barred adverseral politicial system the US has, by conscious design always had.

Only the professional politicians, such as Bill Clinton or Jeb Bush, are paying any mind to it at this point out and away from it, along with the political junkies among the MSM and the off-MSM. The chronic follower and groupie junkies are posting to website discussion boards about it. In what really matters, the voters themselves take a moment in September of the election year to see who's running, watch the 3 + 1 debates during October, then the weekend before the first Tuesday of November make up their minds.

Your mind and my own mind are made up already. If Sen Warren turns out to be the D party nominee I'll vote for her in November, for sure. Conversely, if the R party ticket turns out to be Ted Cruz&Michelle Bachman, the Rs here will vote for it. There'd be some exception concerning who'd vote for whom, but not much.

I agree with your assessment of the election debacle, but I would have to disagree with your claim that there's no other way to do it. While you are correct in that we (America) have to stick with the current system due to that Constitution thingy, I believe that altering the funding mechanism, and term limits, would go a long way to resolving the mess we've managed to make of things. IMHO, there needs to be a Constitutional amendment stipulating that all elections, regardless of local, state, or Federal, are to be publicly funded. It is my feeling that the funding should be by tax, requiring every citizen of legal voting age to pay an annual Federal tax, with no exceptions, which would be place in a fund that would be equally distributed to all candidates. No outside funds would be permitted, not even from the candidate's own pocket. Each candidate would be free to spend the funds as he/she chose, but once the funds were gone, that's it. Spend it all on the primaries, fine, but you're out of luck for the election cycle. Save it for the election cycle, and you may be lame during the primaries, but it's all up to you. That puts everyone on an even footing, and opens up elections to any citizen qualified...not just the uber-wealthy and connected. Additionally, any individual elected to any office is term limited to one six year term; then he/she goes home. No more career politicians, bought and paid for by multi-national corporations, unions, special interest groups, or rich individuals. That would also free them from fund raising (the average Congress person spends four to six hours a day raising money), and give them much more time to focus on the legitimate business of running the country. Since worrying about re-election is no longer a concern, they can vote their conscience, and not worry about offending donors. This system is, of course, not perfect, but I think something like this would go a long way to resolving a lot of the election problems we face.

[Publicus]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The US campaign for prez is excessive when compared and contrasted to other democracies but there isn't any other way to do it in the United States.

The regular-term election cycle proscribed in the constitution precludes the snap election common to the parliamentary system. Nor is the US a constitutional monarchy, meaning voters elect the civilian who is to become head of state (the prez).

No one is quite prepared much less imminently qualified to be the president. While the US has the Ivy League assortment of prestigious universities, there is no one or two schools of public administration or of governance such as in the Old World from Europe to China, from Eton to Peking University. Hence the US has the lengthy and grueling process of campaigning for the party's prize, which is its coveted nomination at its quadrennial national convention in the summer before the election. Even Hillary and Jeb have to be ground through the process like sausages.

The predicate of it all is that the grotesque process ensures that the person who emerges from it will not crack up in the White House given the highly partisan and no holds barred adverseral politicial system the US has, by conscious design always had.

Only the professional politicians, such as Bill Clinton or Jeb Bush, are paying any mind to it at this point out and away from it, along with the political junkies among the MSM and the off-MSM. The chronic follower and groupie junkies are posting to website discussion boards about it. In what really matters, the voters themselves take a moment in September of the election year to see who's running, watch the 3 + 1 debates during October, then the weekend before the first Tuesday of November make up their minds.

Your mind and my own mind are made up already. If Sen Warren turns out to be the D party nominee I'll vote for her in November, for sure. Conversely, if the R party ticket turns out to be Ted Cruz&Michelle Bachman, the Rs here will vote for it. There'd be some exception concerning who'd vote for whom, but not much.

I agree with your assessment of the election debacle, but I would have to disagree with your claim that there's no other way to do it. While you are correct in that we (America) have to stick with the current system due to that Constitution thingy, I believe that altering the funding mechanism, and term limits, would go a long way to resolving the mess we've managed to make of things. IMHO, there needs to be a Constitutional amendment stipulating that all elections, regardless of local, state, or Federal, are to be publicly funded. It is my feeling that the funding should be by tax, requiring every citizen of legal voting age to pay an annual Federal tax, with no exceptions, which would be place in a fund that would be equally distributed to all candidates. No outside funds would be permitted, not even from the candidate's own pocket. Each candidate would be free to spend the funds as he/she chose, but once the funds were gone, that's it. Spend it all on the primaries, fine, but you're out of luck for the election cycle. Save it for the election cycle, and you may be lame during the primaries, but it's all up to you. That puts everyone on an even footing, and opens up elections to any citizen qualified...not just the uber-wealthy and connected. Additionally, any individual elected to any office is term limited to one six year term; then he/she goes home. No more career politicians, bought and paid for by multi-national corporations, unions, special interest groups, or rich individuals. That would also free them from fund raising (the average Congress person spends four to six hours a day raising money), and give them much more time to focus on the legitimate business of running the country. Since worrying about re-election is no longer a concern, they can vote their conscience, and not worry about offending donors. This system is, of course, not perfect, but I think something like this would go a long way to resolving a lot of the election problems we face.

Public funding of campaigns is the best of numerous dubious notions to include the present system which is more than dubious. I share your view in favor of public funding of political campaigns, which is the view of a minority of Americans.

The reason I passed over mentioning public funding of campaigns is that the vast majority of the public are adamantly opposed, and until that fierce and broad opposition can begin to be eroded, public funding of political campaigns is off the table and not even under the same roof. Americans overwhelmingly believe public funding to be unjustified welfare and a free handout to politicians to run for office and to get themselves elected.

Agreed, It obviously would take the corporate money out as well as other big money, which would be a major upgrade to the process and to the system. But the public see it as giving money to aspiring politicians to initiate or to further their careers.

Term limits have not worked out well either, and I anyway am opposed to term limits since Congress got rid of the seniority system in favor of electing committee chairmen and their other leaders regardless of longevity.

Unless and until we can bring public opinion radically around on this, public funding will remain very far out of reach.

As you know, the buck or so we can designate on our personal income tax filing each year to the presidential campaign fund doesn't come out of our individual tax filing. The government sets that money aside separately, which is public financing, but it's for president and the public in general doesn't see this in the same way as for every wannabe politician in the country that is on the hustle to get elected.

Strange but true.

[Traveler19491]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The US campaign for prez is excessive when compared and contrasted to other democracies but there isn't any other way to do it in the United States.

The regular-term election cycle proscribed in the constitution precludes the snap election common to the parliamentary system. Nor is the US a constitutional monarchy, meaning voters elect the civilian who is to become head of state (the prez).

No one is quite prepared much less imminently qualified to be the president. While the US has the Ivy League assortment of prestigious universities, there is no one or two schools of public administration or of governance such as in the Old World from Europe to China, from Eton to Peking University. Hence the US has the lengthy and grueling process of campaigning for the party's prize, which is its coveted nomination at its quadrennial national convention in the summer before the election. Even Hillary and Jeb have to be ground through the process like sausages.

The predicate of it all is that the grotesque process ensures that the person who emerges from it will not crack up in the White House given the highly partisan and no holds barred adverseral politicial system the US has, by conscious design always had.

Only the professional politicians, such as Bill Clinton or Jeb Bush, are paying any mind to it at this point out and away from it, along with the political junkies among the MSM and the off-MSM. The chronic follower and groupie junkies are posting to website discussion boards about it. In what really matters, the voters themselves take a moment in September of the election year to see who's running, watch the 3 + 1 debates during October, then the weekend before the first Tuesday of November make up their minds.

Your mind and my own mind are made up already. If Sen Warren turns out to be the D party nominee I'll vote for her in November, for sure. Conversely, if the R party ticket turns out to be Ted Cruz&Michelle Bachman, the Rs here will vote for it. There'd be some exception concerning who'd vote for whom, but not much.

I agree with your assessment of the election debacle, but I would have to disagree with your claim that there's no other way to do it. While you are correct in that we (America) have to stick with the current system due to that Constitution thingy, I believe that altering the funding mechanism, and term limits, would go a long way to resolving the mess we've managed to make of things. IMHO, there needs to be a Constitutional amendment stipulating that all elections, regardless of local, state, or Federal, are to be publicly funded. It is my feeling that the funding should be by tax, requiring every citizen of legal voting age to pay an annual Federal tax, with no exceptions, which would be place in a fund that would be equally distributed to all candidates. No outside funds would be permitted, not even from the candidate's own pocket. Each candidate would be free to spend the funds as he/she chose, but once the funds were gone, that's it. Spend it all on the primaries, fine, but you're out of luck for the election cycle. Save it for the election cycle, and you may be lame during the primaries, but it's all up to you. That puts everyone on an even footing, and opens up elections to any citizen qualified...not just the uber-wealthy and connected. Additionally, any individual elected to any office is term limited to one six year term; then he/she goes home. No more career politicians, bought and paid for by multi-national corporations, unions, special interest groups, or rich individuals. That would also free them from fund raising (the average Congress person spends four to six hours a day raising money), and give them much more time to focus on the legitimate business of running the country. Since worrying about re-election is no longer a concern, they can vote their conscience, and not worry about offending donors. This system is, of course, not perfect, but I think something like this would go a long way to resolving a lot of the election problems we face.

Public funding of campaigns is the best of numerous dubious notions to include the present system which is more than dubious. I share your view in favor of public funding of political campaigns, which is the view of a minority of Americans.

The reason I passed over mentioning public funding of campaigns is that the vast majority of the public are adamantly opposed, and until that fierce and broad opposition can begin to be eroded, public funding of political campaigns is off the table and not even under the same roof. Americans overwhelmingly believe public funding to be unjustified welfare and a free handout to politicians to run for office and to get themselves elected.

Agreed, It obviously would take the corporate money out as well as other big money, which would be a major upgrade to the process and to the system. But the public see it as giving money to aspiring politicians to initiate or to further their careers.

Term limits have not worked out well either, and I anyway am opposed to term limits since Congress got rid of the seniority system in favor of electing committee chairmen and their other leaders regardless of longevity.

Unless and until we can bring public opinion radically around on this, public funding will remain very far out of reach.

As you know, the buck or so we can designate on our personal income tax filing each year to the presidential campaign fund doesn't come out of our individual tax filing. The government sets that money aside separately, which is public financing, but it's for president and the public in general doesn't see this in the same way as for every wannabe politician in the country that is on the hustle to get elected.

Strange but true.

You're quite correct in stating that the vast majority of the public is opposed to public funding, but that is due to the fact that the public has been duped into believing that they are better off permitting politicians to raise their own money...not considering the fact that any politician must then be beholden to the person or entity that provided the moneys necessary for them to win their job. It also remains in the best interest of the politician to retain the status quo, as that assures them of consistent victories (incumbents are re-elected somewhere near 90% of the time). A ship of this size and momentum is going to take a considerable amount of time to alter course. But that doesn't mean that the work shouldn't begin. The current system benefits only the plutocrats, and if the average citizen is to ever again realize his/her inherent rights and benefits, then the system has to change.

[Publicus]

Yes, your thoughtful and well directed post for public funding of political campaigns is more than appreciated here, as are the wrongheaded reasons the public have in their adamant opposition to it.

Government in the US has missed a lot of intelligent and thoughtful people who just don't have the money to run, don't know how or where to get the money, or don't have the personality to grovel around for the money to finance a political campaign.

Plus and you can believe me that incumbents wretch at the thought of the opponent having the same amount of money to run as they do, which is just another real world factor that militates against public funding.

As long as the general public think and believe in the shortsighted way they do, they keep on guaranteeing they get the political system they deserve. So they may as well get it good and hard until they might learn to reverse it.

[BoneRanger]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The US campaign for prez is excessive when compared and contrasted to other democracies but there isn't any other way to do it in the United States.

The regular-term election cycle proscribed in the constitution precludes the snap election common to the parliamentary system. Nor is the US a constitutional monarchy, meaning voters elect the civilian who is to become head of state (the prez).

No one is quite prepared much less imminently qualified to be the president. While the US has the Ivy League assortment of prestigious universities, there is no one or two schools of public administration or of governance such as in the Old World from Europe to China, from Eton to Peking University. Hence the US has the lengthy and grueling process of campaigning for the party's prize, which is its coveted nomination at its quadrennial national convention in the summer before the election. Even Hillary and Jeb have to be ground through the process like sausages.

The predicate of it all is that the grotesque process ensures that the person who emerges from it will not crack up in the White House given the highly partisan and no holds barred adverseral politicial system the US has, by conscious design always had.

Only the professional politicians, such as Bill Clinton or Jeb Bush, are paying any mind to it at this point out and away from it, along with the political junkies among the MSM and the off-MSM. The chronic follower and groupie junkies are posting to website discussion boards about it. In what really matters, the voters themselves take a moment in September of the election year to see who's running, watch the 3 + 1 debates during October, then the weekend before the first Tuesday of November make up their minds.

Your mind and my own mind are made up already. If Sen Warren turns out to be the D party nominee I'll vote for her in November, for sure. Conversely, if the R party ticket turns out to be Ted Cruz&Michelle Bachman, the Rs here will vote for it. There'd be some exception concerning who'd vote for whom, but not much.

I agree with your assessment of the election debacle, but I would have to disagree with your claim that there's no other way to do it. While you are correct in that we (America) have to stick with the current system due to that Constitution thingy, I believe that altering the funding mechanism, and term limits, would go a long way to resolving the mess we've managed to make of things. IMHO, there needs to be a Constitutional amendment stipulating that all elections, regardless of local, state, or Federal, are to be publicly funded. It is my feeling that the funding should be by tax, requiring every citizen of legal voting age to pay an annual Federal tax, with no exceptions, which would be place in a fund that would be equally distributed to all candidates. No outside funds would be permitted, not even from the candidate's own pocket. Each candidate would be free to spend the funds as he/she chose, but once the funds were gone, that's it. Spend it all on the primaries, fine, but you're out of luck for the election cycle. Save it for the election cycle, and you may be lame during the primaries, but it's all up to you. That puts everyone on an even footing, and opens up elections to any citizen qualified...not just the uber-wealthy and connected. Additionally, any individual elected to any office is term limited to one six year term; then he/she goes home. No more career politicians, bought and paid for by multi-national corporations, unions, special interest groups, or rich individuals. That would also free them from fund raising (the average Congress person spends four to six hours a day raising money), and give them much more time to focus on the legitimate business of running the country. Since worrying about re-election is no longer a concern, they can vote their conscience, and not worry about offending donors. This system is, of course, not perfect, but I think something like this would go a long way to resolving a lot of the election problems we face.

Public funding of campaigns is the best of numerous dubious notions to include the present system which is more than dubious. I share your view in favor of public funding of political campaigns, which is the view of a minority of Americans.

The reason I passed over mentioning public funding of campaigns is that the vast majority of the public are adamantly opposed, and until that fierce and broad opposition can begin to be eroded, public funding of political campaigns is off the table and not even under the same roof. Americans overwhelmingly believe public funding to be unjustified welfare and a free handout to politicians to run for office and to get themselves elected.

Agreed, It obviously would take the corporate money out as well as other big money, which would be a major upgrade to the process and to the system. But the public see it as giving money to aspiring politicians to initiate or to further their careers.

Term limits have not worked out well either, and I anyway am opposed to term limits since Congress got rid of the seniority system in favor of electing committee chairmen and their other leaders regardless of longevity.

Unless and until we can bring public opinion radically around on this, public funding will remain very far out of reach.

As you know, the buck or so we can designate on our personal income tax filing each year to the presidential campaign fund doesn't come out of our individual tax filing. The government sets that money aside separately, which is public financing, but it's for president and the public in general doesn't see this in the same way as for every wannabe politician in the country that is on the hustle to get elected.

Strange but true.

Limited public funding campaign sounds good but what about Networks like FOX that run a 24/7 republican campaigns, posing as news, attacking the opposition?

[Publicus]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The US campaign for prez is excessive when compared and contrasted to other democracies but there isn't any other way to do it in the United States.

The regular-term election cycle proscribed in the constitution precludes the snap election common to the parliamentary system. Nor is the US a constitutional monarchy, meaning voters elect the civilian who is to become head of state (the prez).

No one is quite prepared much less imminently qualified to be the president. While the US has the Ivy League assortment of prestigious universities, there is no one or two schools of public administration or of governance such as in the Old World from Europe to China, from Eton to Peking University. Hence the US has the lengthy and grueling process of campaigning for the party's prize, which is its coveted nomination at its quadrennial national convention in the summer before the election. Even Hillary and Jeb have to be ground through the process like sausages.

The predicate of it all is that the grotesque process ensures that the person who emerges from it will not crack up in the White House given the highly partisan and no holds barred adverseral politicial system the US has, by conscious design always had.

Only the professional politicians, such as Bill Clinton or Jeb Bush, are paying any mind to it at this point out and away from it, along with the political junkies among the MSM and the off-MSM. The chronic follower and groupie junkies are posting to website discussion boards about it. In what really matters, the voters themselves take a moment in September of the election year to see who's running, watch the 3 + 1 debates during October, then the weekend before the first Tuesday of November make up their minds.

Your mind and my own mind are made up already. If Sen Warren turns out to be the D party nominee I'll vote for her in November, for sure. Conversely, if the R party ticket turns out to be Ted Cruz&Michelle Bachman, the Rs here will vote for it. There'd be some exception concerning who'd vote for whom, but not much.

I agree with your assessment of the election debacle, but I would have to disagree with your claim that there's no other way to do it. While you are correct in that we (America) have to stick with the current system due to that Constitution thingy, I believe that altering the funding mechanism, and term limits, would go a long way to resolving the mess we've managed to make of things. IMHO, there needs to be a Constitutional amendment stipulating that all elections, regardless of local, state, or Federal, are to be publicly funded. It is my feeling that the funding should be by tax, requiring every citizen of legal voting age to pay an annual Federal tax, with no exceptions, which would be place in a fund that would be equally distributed to all candidates. No outside funds would be permitted, not even from the candidate's own pocket. Each candidate would be free to spend the funds as he/she chose, but once the funds were gone, that's it. Spend it all on the primaries, fine, but you're out of luck for the election cycle. Save it for the election cycle, and you may be lame during the primaries, but it's all up to you. That puts everyone on an even footing, and opens up elections to any citizen qualified...not just the uber-wealthy and connected. Additionally, any individual elected to any office is term limited to one six year term; then he/she goes home. No more career politicians, bought and paid for by multi-national corporations, unions, special interest groups, or rich individuals. That would also free them from fund raising (the average Congress person spends four to six hours a day raising money), and give them much more time to focus on the legitimate business of running the country. Since worrying about re-election is no longer a concern, they can vote their conscience, and not worry about offending donors. This system is, of course, not perfect, but I think something like this would go a long way to resolving a lot of the election problems we face.

Public funding of campaigns is the best of numerous dubious notions to include the present system which is more than dubious. I share your view in favor of public funding of political campaigns, which is the view of a minority of Americans.

The reason I passed over mentioning public funding of campaigns is that the vast majority of the public are adamantly opposed, and until that fierce and broad opposition can begin to be eroded, public funding of political campaigns is off the table and not even under the same roof. Americans overwhelmingly believe public funding to be unjustified welfare and a free handout to politicians to run for office and to get themselves elected.

Agreed, It obviously would take the corporate money out as well as other big money, which would be a major upgrade to the process and to the system. But the public see it as giving money to aspiring politicians to initiate or to further their careers.

Term limits have not worked out well either, and I anyway am opposed to term limits since Congress got rid of the seniority system in favor of electing committee chairmen and their other leaders regardless of longevity.

Unless and until we can bring public opinion radically around on this, public funding will remain very far out of reach.

As you know, the buck or so we can designate on our personal income tax filing each year to the presidential campaign fund doesn't come out of our individual tax filing. The government sets that money aside separately, which is public financing, but it's for president and the public in general doesn't see this in the same way as for every wannabe politician in the country that is on the hustle to get elected.

Strange but true.

Limited public funding campaign sounds good but what about Networks like FOX that run a 24/7 republican campaigns, posing as news, attacking the opposition?

Maybe some limited public funding might happen and while I had thought the Obama presidency was the best possibility of that, the Rs in Washington and in the state capitals precluded any of his possible initiatives to change the system.

I'm not clear anyway that Obama ever had public funding of campaigns as a priority or a high priority. He's certainly been able to raise the hugest bucks ever among candidates for prez, even acknowledging he gets a lot of small contributions via internet and by other means.

As you fully appreciate, Faux Newscorpse as grotesque as it is to most Americans has the same First Amendment freedoms as any other, and they all have substantially and significantly the same freedoms and protections against the government or against opponents.

The Federal Communications Commission that licenses these organizations pretty much stays out of it. The private media organizations that used to take complaints have faded due to the proliferation of cable-satellite networks such as Fox which have happy niche audiences in the overall marketplace of politics and public affairs. Politifact and a few others like it have materialized to fill the void and they do that very well, there just aren't enough of such organizations.

Beyond all this, political maturity has developed to the point that most Americans see Fox as what it is. The Fauxcorpse audience is small and the average age is 67. Fox knows its niche and plays strongly and entirely to them.

Who doesn't know what Faux is. A person either likes it so they watch it, or doesn't like it so doesn't watch it....or doesn't like it and watches it for the hilariously wild and crazy entertainment that it is. Who anyway besides MSNBC reports and comments on anything Fox does or says....and vice versa.....

[Traveler19491]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The US campaign for prez is excessive when compared and contrasted to other democracies but there isn't any other way to do it in the United States.

The regular-term election cycle proscribed in the constitution precludes the snap election common to the parliamentary system. Nor is the US a constitutional monarchy, meaning voters elect the civilian who is to become head of state (the prez).

No one is quite prepared much less imminently qualified to be the president. While the US has the Ivy League assortment of prestigious universities, there is no one or two schools of public administration or of governance such as in the Old World from Europe to China, from Eton to Peking University. Hence the US has the lengthy and grueling process of campaigning for the party's prize, which is its coveted nomination at its quadrennial national convention in the summer before the election. Even Hillary and Jeb have to be ground through the process like sausages.

The predicate of it all is that the grotesque process ensures that the person who emerges from it will not crack up in the White House given the highly partisan and no holds barred adverseral politicial system the US has, by conscious design always had.

Only the professional politicians, such as Bill Clinton or Jeb Bush, are paying any mind to it at this point out and away from it, along with the political junkies among the MSM and the off-MSM. The chronic follower and groupie junkies are posting to website discussion boards about it. In what really matters, the voters themselves take a moment in September of the election year to see who's running, watch the 3 + 1 debates during October, then the weekend before the first Tuesday of November make up their minds.

Your mind and my own mind are made up already. If Sen Warren turns out to be the D party nominee I'll vote for her in November, for sure. Conversely, if the R party ticket turns out to be Ted Cruz&Michelle Bachman, the Rs here will vote for it. There'd be some exception concerning who'd vote for whom, but not much.

I agree with your assessment of the election debacle, but I would have to disagree with your claim that there's no other way to do it. While you are correct in that we (America) have to stick with the current system due to that Constitution thingy, I believe that altering the funding mechanism, and term limits, would go a long way to resolving the mess we've managed to make of things. IMHO, there needs to be a Constitutional amendment stipulating that all elections, regardless of local, state, or Federal, are to be publicly funded. It is my feeling that the funding should be by tax, requiring every citizen of legal voting age to pay an annual Federal tax, with no exceptions, which would be place in a fund that would be equally distributed to all candidates. No outside funds would be permitted, not even from the candidate's own pocket. Each candidate would be free to spend the funds as he/she chose, but once the funds were gone, that's it. Spend it all on the primaries, fine, but you're out of luck for the election cycle. Save it for the election cycle, and you may be lame during the primaries, but it's all up to you. That puts everyone on an even footing, and opens up elections to any citizen qualified...not just the uber-wealthy and connected. Additionally, any individual elected to any office is term limited to one six year term; then he/she goes home. No more career politicians, bought and paid for by multi-national corporations, unions, special interest groups, or rich individuals. That would also free them from fund raising (the average Congress person spends four to six hours a day raising money), and give them much more time to focus on the legitimate business of running the country. Since worrying about re-election is no longer a concern, they can vote their conscience, and not worry about offending donors. This system is, of course, not perfect, but I think something like this would go a long way to resolving a lot of the election problems we face.

Public funding of campaigns is the best of numerous dubious notions to include the present system which is more than dubious. I share your view in favor of public funding of political campaigns, which is the view of a minority of Americans.

The reason I passed over mentioning public funding of campaigns is that the vast majority of the public are adamantly opposed, and until that fierce and broad opposition can begin to be eroded, public funding of political campaigns is off the table and not even under the same roof. Americans overwhelmingly believe public funding to be unjustified welfare and a free handout to politicians to run for office and to get themselves elected.

Agreed, It obviously would take the corporate money out as well as other big money, which would be a major upgrade to the process and to the system. But the public see it as giving money to aspiring politicians to initiate or to further their careers.

Term limits have not worked out well either, and I anyway am opposed to term limits since Congress got rid of the seniority system in favor of electing committee chairmen and their other leaders regardless of longevity.

Unless and until we can bring public opinion radically around on this, public funding will remain very far out of reach.

As you know, the buck or so we can designate on our personal income tax filing each year to the presidential campaign fund doesn't come out of our individual tax filing. The government sets that money aside separately, which is public financing, but it's for president and the public in general doesn't see this in the same way as for every wannabe politician in the country that is on the hustle to get elected.

Strange but true.

Limited public funding campaign sounds good but what about Networks like FOX that run a 24/7 republican campaigns, posing as news, attacking the opposition?

Unfortunately, due to that whole First Amendment thing, there is little that can be done to curb the non-stop pollution emanating from the likes of Faux Gnus. However, the one thing that would put a monumental crimp in their ongoing efforts to misinform the public would be to reinstate the equal time provisions of the FCC regulations. Were that to be done, Faux Gnus would be out of business in a month.

One interesting tidbit about FOX...seems that they are co-owned by the Saudis. http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=57587 http://www.kingdom.com.sa/investments/media-and-publishing/news-corporation

Gotta wonder how the far right manages to deal with that.

[Ulysses G.]

Who anyway besides MSNBC reports and comments on anything Fox does or says....and vice versa.....

You've got to be kidding. Try Mediaite and The Daily Beast just for starters. They have tons of stories on Fox News and in great detail. There are 4 stories about Fox right now on the main page of Mediaite, including the lead.

http://www.mediaite.com/

Edited January 4, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

The less government the better in the MSM marketplace and over the cable-satellite industry which is how the government views it too.

You recall the Equal Time provision was for the three network television broadcasting and for multi-station AM radio. The FCC was able to handle the equal time complaints/demands without too much of a burden on them or on the industry.

Now however it's an entirely different story, with the proliferation of cable-satellite public affairs networks. While the broadcast spectrum is deemed to belong to the public, it was much easier to regulate it when there were three major strictly broadcast television networks and the proliferation of radio, and all this was well before big time talk radio and Rush Limbaugh et al.

Today the FCC would need to build a new building to handle EQT demands across the political spectrum. It would have to expand its Compliance Division and its Enforcement Division, into the size of army battalions. Network owners would march on Washington to change the laws, rules, regs and the public probably would too.

Cable-satellite has become like the magazine industry used to be and in many ways still is, which is to say if there is an audience for an interest or for a perversion there's a magazine for it....the same is now true of cable-satellite TV. Hell, when I was in the PRChina and bought the extremely expensive cable-satellite system the ordinary Chinese are prohibited getting, the cable guy showed me the complicated code on the remote to bypass the Great Firewall to access the porn stations on the networks (boring by our standards btw).

Equal Time was for its time and served its purpose fairly well. What Fox says doesn't scare me and even if it did it would be best to let 'em scare everyone away except for the really really hard core that are socio-culturally and politically unsalvageable and irredeemable.

I mean this is too precious to see it spoiled by equal time for your or I to interrupt....

Comic Relief: Fox News Runs Laughably Biased Report On Media Bias

...being so devoted to misinforming their audience as they are, Fox couldn’t help themselves as they demonstrated an Olympian mastery of self-delusion and unintentional comedy. They chose for their topic a collection of what they called “The Worst of the Worst: Ranking the Most Bias (sic) Reporting of 2014″

In what they called a “banner year for bias” they managed to miss every serious incident of it. That may be due to that fact that most of it was occurring right under their noses in the Fox News studios.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=24290

Edited January 4, 2015 by Publicus

[chuckd]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<snip>

I agree with your assessment of the election debacle, but I would have to disagree with your claim that there's no other way to do it. While you are correct in that we (America) have to stick with the current system due to that Constitution thingy, I believe that altering the funding mechanism, and term limits, would go a long way to resolving the mess we've managed to make of things. IMHO, there needs to be a Constitutional amendment stipulating that all elections, regardless of local, state, or Federal, are to be publicly funded. It is my feeling that the funding should be by tax, requiring every citizen of legal voting age to pay an annual Federal tax, with no exceptions, which would be place in a fund that would be equally distributed to all candidates. No outside funds would be permitted, not even from the candidate's own pocket. Each candidate would be free to spend the funds as he/she chose, but once the funds were gone, that's it. Spend it all on the primaries, fine, but you're out of luck for the election cycle. Save it for the election cycle, and you may be lame during the primaries, but it's all up to you. That puts everyone on an even footing, and opens up elections to any citizen qualified...not just the uber-wealthy and connected. Additionally, any individual elected to any office is term limited to one six year term; then he/she goes home. No more career politicians, bought and paid for by multi-national corporations, unions, special interest groups, or rich individuals. That would also free them from fund raising (the average Congress person spends four to six hours a day raising money), and give them much more time to focus on the legitimate business of running the country. Since worrying about re-election is no longer a concern, they can vote their conscience, and not worry about offending donors. This system is, of course, not perfect, but I think something like this would go a long way to resolving a lot of the election problems we face.

" It is my feeling that the funding should be by tax, requiring every citizen of legal voting age to pay an annual Federal tax, with no exceptions, "

Besides your theory being ridiculous, it has also been ruled unconstitutional in accordance with "that constitution thingy".

In earlier days, paying to vote was called a Poll Tax. It was thrown out in the 1960s by the Supreme Court.

You're going to have to come up with a better source to raise your funds than a voting tax on the citizens.

And then you make this little suggestion, also throwing aside "that constitution thingy".

"Additionally, any individual elected to any office is term limited to one six year term; then he/she goes home."

Would you propose all elected officials be elected on the first Tuesday of November every six years or would you stagger the elections, to maybe one sixth of all elected officialdom each year being elected and installed into office? If once every six years, how do you handle the office shuttle on the changeover period in January? Do the outgoing incumbents have to vacate their offices before the end of their terms or can the incoming politicians share the quarters for a month or so?

The other small problem is how to get the incumbents to be responsible to their constituents unless they have to face re-election every few years. Would you require them to punch a time clock or sign an attendance register to make certain they aren't playing golf all the time? Hold their pay if they don't put their time in?

It would seem your theory might have a few loopholes but you and yours on this forum can probably solve that with a little brainstorming.

Does your six year requirement also apply to the States or are they permitted to run their own lives?

Give it some thought and get back to us. I look forward to your input.

[Ulysses G.]

Comic Relief: Fox News Runs Laughably Biased Report On Media Bias

Talking about laughably biased, take a gander at this laughably biased, far left web site. Fox has nothing on them in the baloney peddling department.

[Publicus]

Who anyway besides MSNBC reports and comments on anything Fox does or says....and vice versa.....

You've got to be kidding. Try Mediaite and The Daily Beast just for starters. They have tons of stories on Fox News and in great detail. There are 4 stories about Fox right now on the main page of Mediaite, including the lead.

http://www.mediaite.com/

Your cite is a story in media distinctly separate from Fox reporting the story of Huckabee just as nearly every news organization is doing. That's all. No one takes seriously anything Fox says to report it as valid or viable -- trusted -- news.

My god.

[chuckd]

Who anyway besides MSNBC reports and comments on anything Fox does or says....and vice versa.....

You've got to be kidding. Try Mediaite and The Daily Beast just for starters. They have tons of stories on Fox News and in great detail. There are 4 stories about Fox right now on the main page of Mediaite, including the lead.

http://www.mediaite.com/

Your cite is a story in media distinctly separate from Fox reporting the story of Huckabee just as nearly every news organization is doing. That's all. No one takes seriously anything Fox says to report it as valid or viable -- trusted -- news.

My god.

You might find a few that disagree with your assessment in this article. Somebody must believe them since millions tune in each day to watch them.

FOX News is the Most-Watched Cable News Channel Among Total Viewers and Adults 25-54 for the 13th Consecutive Year

Article and numbers here: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/12/31/fox-news-is-the-most-watched-cable-news-channel-among-total-viewers-and-adults-25-54-for-the-13th-consecutive-year/344939/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...or this one from a progressive liberal source that you will find completely honest and forthright:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox News Dominates Cable News Ratings In 2014, MSNBC Tumbles

Article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/cable-news-ratings/

[Ulysses G.]

There are also 3 other stories just on the first page about Fox that he has chosen to ignore. There are even more further inside the site. His claim that "no one besides MSNBC reports and comments on anything Fox does or says" is utter nonsense.

http://www.mediaite.com/

Edited January 4, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[BoneRanger]

Who anyway besides MSNBC reports and comments on anything Fox does or says....and vice versa.....

You've got to be kidding. Try Mediaite and The Daily Beast just for starters. They have tons of stories on Fox News and in great detail. There are 4 stories about Fox right now on the main page of Mediaite, including the lead.

http://www.mediaite.com/

Your cite is a story in media distinctly separate from Fox reporting the story of Huckabee just as nearly every news organization is doing. That's all. No one takes seriously anything Fox says to report it as valid or viable -- trusted -- news.

My god.

You might find a few that disagree with your assessment in this article. Somebody must believe them since millions tune in each day to watch them.

FOX News is the Most-Watched Cable News Channel Among Total Viewers and Adults 25-54 for the 13th Consecutive Year

Article and numbers here: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/12/31/fox-news-is-the-most-watched-cable-news-channel-among-total-viewers-and-adults-25-54-for-the-13th-consecutive-year/344939/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...or this one from a progressive liberal source that you will find completely honest and forthright:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox News Dominates Cable News Ratings In 2014, MSNBC Tumbles

Article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/cable-news-ratings/

"Lots of people watch it...so it's real"

It's big business creating programing for the dumb and religious demographic.

That same audience watches fake wrestling (and doesn't know its fake) and thinks the earth is 6,000 years old.

[BoneRanger]

There are also 3 other stories just on the first page about Fox that he has chosen to ignore. There are even more further inside the site. His claim that "no one besides MSNBC reports and comments on anything Fox does or says" is utter nonsense.

http://www.mediaite.com/

You would have to be a complete moron to watch FOX or MSNBC for your news.